Bremer flip-flops

Is Bremer setting the record straight or executing a spectacular flip-flop?

In a NY times op-ed (likely ghost-written or edited by the same group of slick scriptwriters who helped the President with his case for the Iraq invasion) he argues that he still believes that the US didn't have enough troops last year to prevent looting, noting that the military commanders ("individuals of goodwill") disagreed with him:

The military commanders believed we had enough American troops in Iraq and that having a larger American military presence would have been counterproductive because it would have alienated Iraqis. That was a reasonable point of view, and it may have been right. The truth is that we'll never know.

Nice spin about why we went in with so few troops--Bremer avoids saying we planned for the best case scenario--rose petal receptions, Iraqis fighting alongside American troops, etc.

Assuming Bremer is being honest--not showing up with enough troops because you don't want to alienate Iraqis was also a misguided tactic that should have been corrected early, but clearly the military brass wasn't prepared to listen to the civilian leadership.

Contrast Bremer's "we'll never know", with his earlier, more accurate "paid a dear price" and it is evident that not having enough troops allowed insurgents to regroup and attack with impunity.

Attacks against Americans, a key indicator of stability, have only increased in 2004.

At the start of 2004, they were actually going down, from 735 last November to 410 in February this year. Since then there has been an increase to 2,700 in August and 2,400 in September.

The August 2004 figure represents a 400% increase over March 2004.

Are we any better off than last October when an alarming rise in attacks prompted USA today to note:

There were few attacks against coalition forces immediately after Baghdad fell in April. But by early summer, the Army said attacks were averaging about a dozen per day. In September, the number of attacks exceeded 20 on some days. The attacks are killing an average of three to six American troops per week.

The increase in resistance suggests that raids on rebels and their arms caches so far are failing to reduce the number of attacks against the U.S.-led occupation.

"The enemy has evolved," Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of coalition forces in Iraq, said Thursday in Baghdad. "It is a little bit more lethal, little bit more complex, little bit more sophisticated and in some cases a little bit more tenacious."

A few months later, in January 2004, Sanchez's replacement John Abizaid again predicted a rise in attacks in the runup to handover to sovereignty but did not request additional troops.

Other US commanders in Iraq have recently insisted that American forces have "turned the corner" in the fight against insurgents, and that the members of ousted President Saddam Hussein's government who were leading the resistance had been "brought to their knees".

The bottomline--all top commanders predict a rise in violence as milestones near, but then they continue to cling to this delusion that increasing violence could be combatted with fewer troops or with more Iraqis taking on the burden, a delusion since violence has not tapered off as milestones were passed--toppling of Saddam, creation of CPA, handover of sovereignty, runup to elections--each milestone has been bloodier than the previous. Iraqi forces have proved less than capable of shouldering the burden.

Given this pattern, given Bush's election year reluctance to commit the troop levels necessary to quell the violence, will the elections in Iraq usher in peace?

I suspect even Bremer knows the answer to this one.